Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are perhaps better.

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Those who oppose "illegal immigration" should push for a constitutional amendment to finally make immigration control and closed borders constitutional (therefore, legal). In clear language, with no ambiguity. This would be necessary to make some immigrants "illegal" and end the hypocrisy. Those opposed to "illegal immigration" should obey the highest law before demanding others obey subordinate laws which were never authorized by the Constitution.

Obviously, clear language guarantees nothing. The Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" is perfectly clear, yet has been violated and ignored by "laws" at every level of government for the past 80-plus years.

Even with a constitutional amendment it would still be wrong to pretend any government has the authority to violate private property rights and dictate whom you are allowed to rent to, hire, or invite for a visit, and to tell people where they are allowed to be. At least then those who claim to want government to obey the Constitution wouldn't be talking out of both sides of their mouth.

I do sympathize. To a point.

If you are worried immigrants will vote for more socialism- just like the majority of American voters already do- why not win them over rather than alienating them? The actions taken by those who explain they are only opposed to "illegal immigration" are self-defeating at best. If you believe your way is so unappealing it isn't possible to make newcomers want it, then immigrants are not your biggest problem.

It bothers me when anyone, regardless of where they were born, votes for more socialistic handouts and programs; for more government or more "laws". No matter what justification they use. It makes no difference to me where an attacker or a thief was born, nor what government papers he holds. I want to see aggressors and thieves struck down through self defense every time they strike.

Yet, if private property rights are respected, the whole issue of "immigration" evaporates.

If all property were individually owned, and there weren't an entire system established to wrest control of property from the rightful owners, the owners could decide how to control it. Government owns nothing it didn't either steal from the original owners or buy with stolen (or counterfeited) money. Since no thief owns the stolen property he possesses, why do people pretend there are federal, state, or local "public" lands to be controlled by government?

With real property rights people would either be where they have a right to be, or they'd be trespassing and subject to forcible removal. If property rights stopped immigration, so be it. If not, that's also just fine. This is as it should be.

Ever since the Micheal Brown/Darren Wilson incident I have seen the same thinking error happen over and over again.

Even among those inclined toward liberty.

People who should know better seem to be throwing their unconditional support behind Wilson, just because they don't wish to be seen supporting Brown.

People are so desperate to not be seen supporting someone they see as the bad guy that they make idiots of themselves supporting another bad guy. They want to believe Brown was a bad guy- and it's quite possible he was- so they jump to support Wilson even though he is also a bad guy.

Don't make the mistake of believing that openly breaking counterfeit rules makes a person "bad" either, because nothing could be further from the truth. Good people break bad "laws".

It got so bad I saw people hesitating to condemn the cop who murdered Eric Garner- seemingly based on how they view the Brown/Wilson encounter.

It is common for bad guys to kill each other. It's the life they choose. Don't get wrapped up in supporting one side simply because you hate the other a little more; feel free to condemn both as what they are. And when one side is clearly the bad guy, violating someone who wasn't currently initiating force or theft (which is something ALL on-duty cops are guilty of), then don't hesitate to call the thug a thug.

Monday, December 29, 2014

If firefighting were done like policing, firefighters would go cruising around looking for fire. Or smoke. Instead of actually spending most of their active time rescuing people and property, they would spend most of their time writing tickets for candles, cigarettes, possession of lighters, or anything hotter than allowed. They would have quotas, and if they couldn't fight fires, they would make their own work.

Smokers could be shot dead, with minimal warning, since the firefighter was "only doing his job". And, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Any fires reported would draw firefighters from all over, who would stand around and watch it burn, since they "just want to go home at the end of the shift", and firefighter safety would trump all else.

A firefighter discovered to be an arsonist would be given a few days paid vacation before being found to have acted within departmental policy. He would be reinstated and anyone who spoke out for the victims of the fires he set would be hated and threatened. He would get rich from donations collected during his vacation, and his victims would be said to have deserved what they got.

And we would be constantly told how heroic they are, and how without them, the entire planet would burn to a crisp.
.

Sunday, December 28, 2014

As so many have noticed, there is a Great Divide in America- and I don't mean the Rocky Mountains.

It's a divide between individuals who see themselves as part of a particular group and those who see themselves as part of a different group.

But, the "Great" divide isn't the divisions that we are encouraged to see. It isn't between "Black" or "White" or Hispanic. Not between "immigrant" and "citizen". Not even between "liberal" and "conservative".

Those who support the State, or somehow believe a State enables liberty, are destroying liberty. Actively. Not simply by giving power and comfort to the enemy of liberty, but by marginalizing those actually advocating and supporting liberty.

Supporting the State includes supporting cops, troops, a favorite politician, and even the Constitution (as anything more than an illustration of how illegal the federal government has become by its own rules).

Supporting the State doesn't just mean supporting the individual rights of those people who work for the State- nothing, not even joining the State, can make rights "go away". Supporting the State to the detriment of liberty means saying those people are "good" even if they refuse to walk away from the "job".

Supporting the State means saying "just obey the law", when you know- you KNOW- the "law" is often completely evil and obeying it, when not looking down the barrel of a gun, is wrong.

Supporting the State means being so anxious to not appear to be supporting a freelance thug that you throw your support and advocacy behind a State-employed thug. Forgetting it is possible for both to be parasitic vermin.

Some people believe they can straddle the divide, hopping awkwardly back and forth as the situation merits. It just doesn't work that way. You never know when the music will stop and you are stuck where you stand. Choose wisely. Choose liberty.

Saturday, December 27, 2014

It is sad when I see people who used to be firm advocates of Rightful Liberty backing away.

I understand it is hard to be seen as "radical", and maybe this is part of it. It can be uncomfortable pointing out terrible things that are highly popular. You don't want to be seen as supporting bad guys.

I know I may hold some blame.

Others, I suspect, are allowing themselves to get pulled into some type of government job or entitlement, and are softening their views to accommodate their new life. You have to do what you have to do, but that's only more reason to refuse to even consider working for the bad guys.

Whatever the cause, I hope they realize their mistake before they have done things which can't be taken back.

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

In my naivety I used to believe a time traveler could change the future- his past- by warning people of the path they were on. Recent events have destroyed this assurance.

Just imagine a time traveler going back to 1930s Germany, warning the people (without actually revealing he came from the future) about Hitler and his Brownshirts. After all, they could see with their own eyes the events happening around them, and should be able to figure out the time traveler's warnings are at least plausible. They could choose to change direction and stop worshiping the Nazi enforcers. Right?

I'm not so sure anymore.

Imagine a time traveler from the mid-2020s or so showing up today to warn people about the future of America. Everyone sees what is happening and can see for themselves- if they choose to do so- what police have become. No one would believe a person has actually come from the future to warn them (well, maybe if he's "John Titor") so he probably shouldn't tell them that part, but they should still be able to recognize the current path for what it is and see where it leads- especially with a warning. If they could just stop fluffing badges for a moment and get up off their knees to look around and see where it's all heading. Or, you'd think they could.

But, I believe now they'd just squeeze their eyes shut and "insult" the time traveler for "hating cops", which, due to his past, of course he would. I can hear them crowing: what will you do if you're ever in trouble and need to call a Brownshirt to come save you? Oops, I mean, call a cop.

I suspect, now, that if a time traveler went even further and assassinated Hitler before he could do any real harm, the only effect would be to elevate the dead politician to the status of a hero in the minds of the vast majority- openly and proudly celebrated even today. Think of JFK. People would probably embrace his "vision" even more tightly, no matter how suicidal, to honor his memory.

The sad thing is, it doesn't take a time traveler to see where this train leads. I've done all I can. I have tried to warn people because I care- not only for my own future and the future of my kids, but even for all those who hate me for telling the truth about cops.

Maybe something will happen to change what seems inevitable. I sure hope so. I do believe that after "the inevitable" comes to pass, and implodes, a much freer, brighter future awaits. Liberty does seem to increase over the long term, even considering the painful and tragic blips where it is rolled back temporarily. I just hate to think people are so stupid they insist on going through the bad to get to the good, when the bad times approaching are so avoidable. So many won't make it out the other side. If people will just stop to observe and think... I am disappointed in people right now.

I will try to stop focusing so much on cops. You have all the information you need, already. Absorb it, or ridicule it. Believe me, or hate me. Don't be surprised a few years down the road when you suddenly realize you were warned while you had the power to act and change course in your circle of influence, and you chose instead to shine those badges and point out the "good cops" you've known and loved. Keep licking that hand; you'll sorely regret it. Probably sooner than later.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

A horrific local crime has again shown the folly of allowing a monopoly on providing the service of justice. A monopoly which arose, not by providing a superior service no one could beat, but imposed through destructive laws.

A monopoly in the free market, even one which provides an exceptionally superior service or product, is always temporary. As soon as someone believes they can do it better, spurred on by the potential profits, they will try, and no one can prohibit their attempt.

True monopolies can only survive when enforced by "laws" which forbid- or heavily regulate- competition. An enforced monopoly never results in the best you can get for your money. When such a monopoly administers something as crucial as justice, it is especially tragic.

Maybe police employees really are the most qualified to investigate and try to solve crimes, but to enforce made up rules granting them monopoly status over an investigation helps no one but themselves. Well, and perhaps the more than 30% of murderers who are never caught.

You might point out that private investigators exist, but the truth is they are not really allowed to compete with the police; only to supplement them while remaining subservient. They are supposed to defer to the police and are forced to either dig up information the police have not found first and squirreled away, or beg the police for scraps. They are always expected to hand over, to the officials, anything they find. If a private investigator discovered critical evidence and refused to share the new data with the police, he would probably be charged with a crime. When police do the same thing, people think it's normal.

Independent individuals who discover evidence missed by the "professionals" are eyed with suspicion, and are required to hand over all evidence to the police, who act, not as a voluntary centralized clearinghouse, but as a jealous miser, insisting no one else has the right to the information they hold for themselves. If finding those responsible were the highest priority, this wouldn't be the way to go about it.

Police and government officials also assert they are the only proper ones to release information or to speak publicly about a case.

When a group claims exclusive authority over some necessary service, efficiency is compromised, delays result, and people suffer. If justice, whatever you believe justice to be, were the real goal, you would have as many different investigations going on, and sharing information, as there were people interested in solving the case. No one would be allowed to monopolize the investigation to the detriment of truth and justice.

Most of the justifications for tolerating the existence of cops only exist because of cops. Because cops enforce counterfeit "laws" there is more crime and regular people find it harder to be properly armed at all times like they have the right to be.

A huge factor in the justification of cops is prohibition. Enforcing anti-drug laws is just plain evil, even if drugs can harm you when abused. Prohibition destroys more lives than drugs ever have. Each day that goes by without rejecting the Stupid and Evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is another day with more deaths and disasters directly attributable to it- and more power for The State.

No crooked politician would even bother proposing anti-drug laws without knowing he has a willing thug army at his disposal to enforce any nasty liberty-violating counterfeit "law" he dreams up. So, the existence of cops perpetuates prohibition by giving them busy work to justify their "job". It's a sick cycle.

If being a cop is "honorable", then "honor" has no meaning, and anyone, committing any act, could be called "honorable" with a straight face.

I warn people because I care. I would do the same if I saw you petting a rabid hyena. If you don't want to listen, and insist on supporting cops in spite of everything, that's your business. I'll try to not say "I told you so"- but I'd much rather you avoided being hurt altogether. Because I really do care and I can't watch you heading straight for disaster without speaking up. Your peril causes me distress even as you deny it.

Monday, December 22, 2014

In recent days the notion that cops "help" people (other than politicians who pay them) has reared its head over and over again.

This comes in two forms, depending on how hate-filled the statist uttering the phrase might be: "I hope you never need to call the police to help you" or "I hope when you call the cops they don't come save your worthless...."

Cops don't help. Cops can't help.
I realize there are some situations where you are pretty much forced to call them to keep from getting in deeper "legal" trouble. I hope if this happens you survive their "help"- it certainly isn't a given that you will. In many cases it's probably still better to take your chances with not calling them- but that determination is up to you.

Any other situation a cop might be of any sort of "help" in, you would be better served by someone not a cop. Need armed support? A friend who knows you is less likely to arrive and immediately mistakenly shoot you.

Catch a burglar in your house? I generally think of the phrase "Shoot, shovel, and shut up". Maybe there are better ways to handle that. But, being there when the cops show up to haul off the thief is probably pretty risky. And, ignoring the fact that cops are also thieves- traffic fines, tax-financed paychecks, code enforcement, etc., etc.- just means you are calling in one gang of thieves to deal with another thief.

Your child get kidnapped? You're probably better off posting a notice on social media- the cops might find a body, but thousands of eyes have a better chance of finding a live kid.

Angry mobs of stupid and violent people smashing, burning, and looting? Look to the L.A. riots and Ferguson, MO to see the cowardly uselessness of cops against actual danger. Instead, grab some willing friends, load up your defensive rifles, and protect your own property if you want it to survive. Of course, cops aren't usually afraid of molesting honest people protecting their own property, so you'll still face risk- but the cops aren't there to help you, but only enforce "laws".

There is really no situation where cops are there to "help"- it simply isn't their job or their inclination to do so.

In fact, there is no situation so dire that it can't be made much, much worse by inviting a cop to join in.

You do what you think is best, but if you still believe cops are the good guys, you are in for a painful wake-up call.

I have seen this image making the rounds. It is disgusting in its assumptions.

I'm an atheist, so I have no love for churches and the way they play into people's foolish wishful thinking- however, I am also an anarchist and I don't want ANYONE "paying taxes" for any reason, ever.

It's a matter of voluntary versus coercion.

People aren't forced to give money to churches, but "taxation" always comes at the barrel of a gun. Churches actually do more good for poor people than "welfare" ever has, and giving the State more money is never a good idea.

I see what the local churches do for people in need. I see the food banks and the clothes "closets" and have seen preachers pay for hotel rooms for homeless, stinky men. I see preachers with second jobs, because they aren't paid enough by their church to survive.

I know some people look at the flashy exceptions- the rich churches with lavish furnishings and vast amounts of property, and preachers in rich suits and luxury cars- the ones who are famous and on TV... but those are truly the exceptions. And, using the exceptions as an excuse to "tax" them all, and send more money to our real enemy, is self-destructive.

Focusing on the bad actors in churches ignores the bad actors of the State. Those promoting the "taxing" of churches pretend that the IRS actually uses the stolen money efficiently, and to help people in need- and pretend that "taxation" (and "government" in general) isn't a prime cause of poverty in the first place. And that is so ridiculous I just have no response to that other than "Seriously? Have you been paying attention... ever?"

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Going back just a few years, to around the time I started blogging, there were a few murders by cop. Every couple of months you'd hear of another one.

I still remember Kathryn Johnston.

But, in recent years the police have gotten so out of control and murderous- probably due to their overwhelming cowardice and the cult of "officer safety"- that I'll never be able to keep up with all their recent victims.

Maybe there aren't really more cases. Maybe they are just better reported since it has been taken out of the hands of the mainstream media (who fawn over and shelter cops, regardless of how they try to act on air or in print). Maybe it's due to vigilance on the part of such groups as CopBlock and Film the Police that the murders aren't as easily swept under the rug now.

But I doubt that accounts for all the recent upswing. I hear of more than one murder per day now. And, I suspect it's only going to get worse before police are abolished.
.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Imagine you woke up one morning inside a small room. The door was sealed tight, and through the windows you discovered this room was sitting all alone on the surface of Mars. You look around and see that there is enough stored food and water to survive for a long time, and the air scrubbers seem to be working well. Exploring the room you discover a manual which informs you that your needs will be supplied into the distant future. You will be expected to work inside that room for your life-sustaining supplies- but if you can't work (or just don't want to), you can apply to those who control the habitat to have your needs met anyway.

Or, let's imagine you are sitting in a cage surrounded by ravenous carnivores.

Some symbol of "freedom". Ironically, the eagle's name is "Liberty"

In either case, how free are you? How much liberty do you have? Sure, the Mars habitat and the cage might keep you alive, and death isn't really freedom in any meaningful sense. In your current situation you might be grateful for the protection, but is it sensible to love the cell, or honor those who put you into the position of needing its protection in the first place? And would you really spend time supporting whoever put you in that place and arguing in their favor? Is the protection fundamentally necessary, or was it made necessary, in order to survive your current situation, only by the evil actions of someone else?

Would you celebrate your "freedom cage"? Or, might you accept that even though you'd otherwise be killed, you are still a prisoner?

Well, why celebrate "borders" or The State and the Freedom Cage they have built around you? Do you really believe this is a good way to protect freedom? Much less, Liberty?

The only reason you are in danger from "terrorists" or "immigrants" is because of the liberty-violating actions of those calling themselves "government". The existence of other, possibly distant, government gangs doesn't justify the existence of a closer government gang, nor does it show that "your" gang protects you from the other gangs. Gangs are gangs; none is really substantively "better" than others. Fear of the others shouldn't inspire loyalty to one which claims to protect you from them.

This morning I was listening in on a group of old men chatting over their morning coffee. All seem to have been veterans, as they were discussing the VA and the things they get provided for "free" due to various levels of military-caused disability.

I have no clue about the things they spoke of- I only repeat what they said.

Anyway, they were talking enthusiastically about lifetime "free" car tags and hunting (and fishing) licenses as a couple of the perks they enjoy.

The thought that kept running through my head was that they should be insulted. They are told they were "fighting for freedom", and yet, some of the benefits they get are monuments to tyranny, instead.

"Freedom" would never permit such things as license plates or hunting licenses. They are an affront to Rightful Liberty. They are the opposite of what these guys thought they were fighting for. It is the US government spitting in their eye and telling them it's a reward.

But these old veterans saw no irony whatsoever.

I resisted the urge to point this out to them, but I wonder if I did the right thing. I would want to know if I were missing something so glaringly obvious. But, then, I'm "different".

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

I always read Libertarian Money, enjoy their posts, and usually agree with them. I was reading the linked one, though, and just had to disagree.

Is a local government really less intrusive than a national government?

I don't think so.

Washington DC (or even the state capital) is far, far away. They could pass any "laws" they felt like, but without someone "local" to impose those "laws" on me, what power do they have?

Yes, a "law" saying I must mow my lawn in a particular way is actually more oppressive than a federal anti-gun "law", simply because, well, which one is more likely to be enforced against me?

Do you think the feds have enough hired goons to go around and commit acts of enforcement against everyone with a gun they have criminalized? No. Unless you draw attention to yourself in some way they'll probably never notice. But, the code enforcers who will steal from you based upon your lawn; they live near you. They may drive past your house every day. Chances of them not noticing you in some way is practically non-existent.

Even any federal "laws" you get caught breaking will probably be enforced first by the local goons on behalf of the feds.

Personally, I'd rather get rid of the local molesters and then focus on those thousands of miles away- if it's even worth the bother at that point. Because, without the complicity of the local thugs, how do the feds believe they will enforce anything?

Now, maybe a local government would be easier to fight off and win, but only if it couldn't call upon a federal backup gang to protect it from justice, and perhaps that's a good reason to undermine the false legitimacy of a "national government" first- and support secession or whatever cracks the egg. I'm all for breaking up any government into smaller, bitesize pieces, but I don't pretend one is somehow "better" than another. All are founded upon theft and aggression.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

When I look at the offices which were up for grabs in the recent election, or hear of the political appointments made to fill other positions, I see a lot of jobs that simply shouldn't exist, much less be filled. Not even with "the right person". It doesn't matter how good a person is when what they are doing shouldn't be done.

We don't argue over who should be placed in charge of human sacrifice to the Aztec gods. Well, most of us don't. So why select representatives or people to fill posts someone, at some point in time, thought necessary? Has history taught us nothing? No one needs an "attorney general", a "district attorney", a representative, a governor, or a president. No one is more qualified to run your life than you are, and no person can ever adequately represent the interests of another, not even on a one-to-one basis. To pretend otherwise diminishes your life.

Even if the job you seek to fill is a legitimate one- a job even a free society would want to hire a person to do- there are better ways to select, and pay, your employee.

If a job is legitimate you'll never need to resort to committing "taxation" to finance it, prohibit people opting out of your service, nor forbid competition (through a legal monopoly) in providing the wanted service.

A judge in a free society, for example, would need to attract customers by delivering a superior service. His judgments would need to be fair and equitable; he would not be able to show himself to be favoring one side in a dispute- as those judges who work for the State inevitably do. This conflict of interest should automatically disqualify the State-employed judges in any case where it is "The State vs" anyone. I would seek better options.

The evil insanity of hiring people to administer the taking of your neighbors' property should be even more obvious. Only by calling such an act "taxation" does it escape the moral outrage it would otherwise elicit.

If your system is so wonderful, prove it by making participation and compliance optional. Otherwise, you are just like any other thug who says "my way or the highway"; like the abusive spouse who says his victim must know they "deserve it" because they don't leave.

Look at how much of your money you could save by abolishing positions harmful to your life, liberty, and property, rather than fighting over who should fill them. Realize how much of your life and liberty you would regain once those positions are eliminated and the authority is placed back in your hands where it belongs.
.

One question that anti-gun bigots love to pose to gun owners is "what are you afraid of?"

Well, I can't answer for anyone else, but as for myself- nothing that owning and carrying a gun could protect me from.

Do I believe a gun "makes me safe"? No, but it is a useful part of the strategy to make myself as safe as I can. There are many situations where having a gun in my control makes me safer than if I didn't- and the only times the opposite might be true is when facing the gang of the State. You'll have to decide for yourself whether freelance thugs or State thugs are the greatest danger, and act accordingly.

Monday, December 15, 2014

My second wife told me many times that I should "learn to lie". She was an expert, apparently, and thought it a personal flaw to not be as good at it as she was. Usually I just didn't feel the need. (Although, for my own safety, I eventually learned to hide things from her, which I suppose is a form of lying.)

But I do see how lies might smooth things over. Temporarily.

I won't lie to say I've never lied.

I don't like making people uncomfortable, and will generally try to smooth things over. Even in online discussions I try to not be mean, even when the person is an obvious idiot or troll. I sometimes fail. Stupid human flaws!

My normal in-person tactic, when the truth might be a problem, is to just say nothing- or to try to say the truth in a way that is less painful. This comes up a lot in social situations where people say ridiculous pro-State things that I want to respond to. The truth would cause trouble, so I try to just say nothing. It doesn't come naturally to me. Pointing out their foolishness will probably solve nothing in that case.

Even saying nothing can be troublesome. For those who believe silence is consent, if I say nothing I might find myself in a situation later where I have to speak up or end up doing something I know I shouldn't do. Like stand up and pledge allegiance to a flag or something similar.

Another problem is that some people just can't leave well-enough alone, and keep prying to find out why you aren't saying anything. Or want to know why you just rolled your eyes.

Telling the truth is better and usually easier, even when it hurts people's feelings. "Taxation" is theft. Cops are bad guys. The State is a silly, arbitrary, and harmful mental glitch. Supporting any of those things is a poor decision, based upon self-contradictory errors in thinking. If that hurts your feelings, you need to do some deep thinking and make the decision to go with the truth rather than with what feels nice.

The truth supports liberty in every case I've ever examined. Even in those rare cases where it's not immediately obvious that liberty is better than the alternative, it is only an even trade-off until you add in the simple value of Rightful Liberty- in which case, liberty again rises to the top.

You don't need to lie in support of liberty. If you think you do, just learn a little more and discover what you were missing that makes a lie unnecessary. It's better for everyone that way.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Back when just about all I wore were buckskin clothes, I used to have animal rights advocates fuss at me from time to time over my buckskin jacket. Possibly only the ones who didn't notice the guns and knives hanging on my belt. For some reason they never seemed to get upset that my pants were also buckskin.

The question was always the same: "How can you wear dead animals?"

My answer evolved into this:

"I know how many vertebrates died for me to make my jacket. Three deer, a pig (for the brains I used to tan the hides), and an elk, which is where the sinew used to sew the jacket came from. (Various numbers of yellow jackets were also crushed when I rung out the wet hides during tanning.)

"How many animals died due to the farming or manufacture, and transportation, of your cotton, nylon, or hemp clothing? Habitat loss, agricultural chemicals, the trucks and factories and fuel all took a toll on animals. Both of us wear clothes that resulted in death. At least I own it."

Those who say they believe killing animals is wrong are confused. I can understand believing that killing our closest relatives, like bonobos and other great apes is wrong, even if I don't completely agree (although I don't believe animals have rights, and that the ZAP doesn't cross species lines*). But, let's say for a minute that killing chimps is wrong. Where to draw the line? Apes? Primates? Mammals? Warm blooded animals? Vertebrates? What about wasps or worms?

If it is wrong to kill other animals it shouldn't matter if you are killing them to wear, to eat, by running over them with your vehicle, or by destroying their habitat. After all, they wouldn't care why you were killing them. And if you shouldn't kill other animals, then neither should the other animals kill each other. Humans wouldn't be subject to inconsistent special conditions.

I can understand how religion made such questions easier. After all, if you can just say "Souls." you don't actually need to think about anything deeper.

So, maybe I'm just an animal hater.

I very recently had to have a cat put down. A stray which had adopted me and had lived on my porch for a couple of months- and who suddenly suffered liver failure and possibly other health problems. It completely tore me up inside. I cried, and I have hardly gone outside since. His absence is very painful, as I had gotten used to his friendly companionship every time I went outside. And I actually like many other animals much more than I like cats. I have rescued and raised many injured and orphaned wild animals So, the idea that I don't love animals is absurd. I try to treat them well because I am a decent person, not because they have rights.

-

*If the ZAP applied to how you should relate to other animals, do you believe they are wrong for not applying it when they encounter each other or individuals of other species? Are they even capable of doing that?

Thursday, December 11, 2014

I can't believe this guy is serious, but I guess he is. He wants you to fear "police accountability" and he's willing to lie to make you see his side.

Let me address the assumptions (and falsehoods) this Chief LEO makes in his column: link I'll look at this by the numbers.

1. He claims "more training" would result in a need for at least 25% more personnel- by which he means more armed thugs infesting your town. America is burdened with too many cops already. I'd prefer firing them all, but no rational person could possibly believe we have "too few"- or even the right number of cops. There are at least 10 times too many cops- and probably it's worse than that by at least an order of magnitude. There are better ways to deal with emergencies than by inviting a steroid (and "tax") addict with authority issues and "qualified immunity" into your life. People need to get weaned off of cops

2. He wants "holistic support" because the poor little cowards get stressed, especially with poor community support. Well, stop acting like some elite squad of assassins and thieves, and maybe some of that community support will come back. He is worried that police need to be kept strong. Ummm, yeah, I don't think that's the problem here. In fact, police are much too strong- therein lies the root of the problem- and need to have that strength dialed back. A lot. No more military toys. No more guns on the hip- let them call upon armed passersby if they need armed support. No more privileges for wearing the clown suit. And, most definitely no more "qualified immunity" whatsoever.

3. This next whine is so ignorant I can't believe he actually put it in writing for others to witness: "Everybody seems to know their rights and not their obligations. The law requires compliance with a lawful command." No one has any obligation toward a cop that they don't have to anyone else they encounter. You have an obligation to not attack and not violate their property. The problem is that cops forget they have this exact same obligation to everyone else, too.

And, that is why almost every command a cop makes comes with no obligation. If a cop orders you to drop your gun, he is breaking the law, so you are not "required" to "comply". The fact that the pathetic tax junkie will murder you for hesitating to comply doesn't prove anything except that he is a murderer. Saying the "law requires compliance with a lawful command" is a tautology of the silliest kind. The law says it is the law. No! Really? LOL! What does the law say the law is? The law, of course!

4. Now, he is embarrassing himself again. He says "Bring us minority applicants that you want to be your police officers". OK. I want no one to be "my" police officers. "Race", gender, sexual orientation, or whatever else make zero difference to me. And, don't say "your police officers" because I have never owned one, nor would I want to. Those cops belong to politicians and bureaucrats, only. That is who they "protect and serve". And obey.

Then he goes off about indoctrinating children into believing cops are good guys and becoming one is somehow honorable. Ha! The only way to be a "great police officer" is to walk off the "job" and start advocating for liberty instead of supporting cops. The only "great cops" are ex-cops who now hate cops.

5. This is probably his most pitiful point. Here he is painting cops as the victims. If I try to kidnap someone or steal their property, and they fight back, I am not a victim. Nope. My victim might turn the tables, but if I don't like it I can refuse to attack and steal in the first place. I guess cops are lesser beings who can't make that choice.

He says resisting is an "offense against an officer"- which is backwards. There is an inalienable human right to resist being assaulted. Even the "laws" used to reflect the fact that an "arrest" committed against a person who hadn't done anything wrong was subject to being resisted- even if you had to kill the enforcer in the process.

"Stop dropping charges where police are crime victims." This really isn't the problem. No cop, while on duty, is the victim of a crime. The perpetrator, probably, but not the victim. This is just a case of a coward trying to switch it up. It's like a rapist claiming "Rape!" and blaming his victim when he gets caught in the act.

"...a crime against the police is a crime against everyone’s peace and dignity." No it isn't. The existence of police is a crime against everyone's peace and dignity. Want to help? Quit.

"We really do carry the badge on your behalf." Then DROP it. Now! You do not act on my behalf, nor with my consent.

6. I can almost agree with part of this one. Local police shouldn't be controlled by DC. DC is just as bad, but further away- letting them use the local enforcers as local hitmen isn't good. Of course, this is already being done, regardless. Local cops are told to enforce federal rules along with local ones. Local enforcers are also being bought with bribes of military hardware. No DC oversight? No federal toys. Those simply must go together.

"Policing in a democratic society must be under scrutiny. But let’s do this examination together." It has been done, and you failed spectacularly. Now, get off the tax teat, never again initiate force nor steal, find something useful to do, and do it. Or, keep whining about what special little snowflakes all your brethren are.

He totally failed to address any of the actual issues, trying instead to turn them inside out and make it look like the SS are the victims of the people in the gas chamber. Poor little cops! I hope enough people outside his gang see him as the foolish aggressor he has exposed himself to be.

All men are created equal. But, apparently, that's a difficult concept for some to understand. They try to make it mean something it doesn't so they can justify certain behaviors.

"There is something rather sweet about being Jeffersonian and believing that on some level all human creatures are born equal" (link)

Yeah... except, that isn't what he meant. Obviously there are physical and mental differences among humans- even as babies. But, where all humans are equal and identical is in the rights we are born with. This is the result of ignoring the rest of the quote, which goes on to say: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

I have mentioned before the case of the young mother stabbed to death on the local trail I like to walk. I have speculated she may have been murdered as "payback" for her former fiancee killing a guy at a party a year and a half ago. It turns out there is an alternate possibility suggested by new revelations.

I am not accusing anyone of anything, but simply connecting some dots which will not be connected by local police or prosecutors- dots which may have no connection at all, but it is a real possibility which needs to be considered. So I'll do it.

She was stabbed to death by a guy as she was at the trail with her 6 year old son.

The crime scene investigators, a special team from the state of New Mexico tasked with investigating crime scenes- along with the local cops who first showed up at the scene- managed to overlook the apparent murder weapon, which was found by the victim's relatives after the police tape had been removed and the investigators had left.

The person eventually arrested and charged with her murder claimed he had been hired to kill her by person's unnamed. He then changed his story and said he was just "having a bad day". I strongly suspect he changed his story to protect himself from being silenced by whoever hired him. I originally believed he had been hired by friends, family, or associates of the guy her fiancee had killed, to kill her in revenge

So, here's the line of inquiry which "officials" and "authorities" will never pursue. What if her killer was hired by Aguilar, or a "supporter" of Aguilar, as a warning or threat to Corona? Or as simple revenge.

Anyone looking at this objectively would have to admit it s a possibility. It should be looked into. If only to show I am wildly wrong with this speculation.

We already know Brent Aguilar is aggressive. We already know that, as a cop, he is willing to steal and harm the innocent through the enforcement of arbitrary and harmful "laws". We know that Corona has caused him aggravation due to making the attack public, and by bringing legal attention his way. It is possible that Aguilar- or someone believing they were acting on his behalf- hired the killer.

Think about it.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but every possibility must be considered, and this is just as possible as her murder being payback for her fiancee's actions, and more probable than this having been a random attack. And, obviously, I don't expect anyone in any position of "authority" to ever even admit thinking about this. They must protect their own gang at all costs.

Tuesday, December 09, 2014

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 7, 2014)
Being a fan of spaceflight, especially manned spaceflight, I was saddened by the breakup and crash of Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo.

I hope the problems which caused the loss of the vehicle, and the death of her pilot, are quickly found and solved. Even in the shadow of this new disaster, I'd book passage on the first flight if I had the money.

The truth is unfortunate: tragedies and disasters are not only inevitable, they are necessary. It's how the technological chaff gets winnowed away. Each disaster makes the entire system better, and, as long as the bureaucratic inertia is manageable, shows those building the dream where the changes must be made. It would be great if these problems could be found and fixed some other way, but the evidence of technological history seems to show they can't.

Back in the days when the NASA space shuttles were just beginning to fly, I knew a fatal failure was inevitable and wondered whether the first would occur during a launch or a landing. My fear was that once it did happen, bureaucrats would lose their nerve. It happened, and they did. There will always be plenty of people who understand the risks and are willing to face them. Commercial spaceflight will expand, even if governments continue to erect barriers. Most people are simply more brave than politicians and bureaucrats can imagine.

It seems ridiculous that governmental agencies believe they are uniquely qualified to investigate accidents such as these. When a government spacecraft accident kills people, government investigates itself; when a private spacecraft accident kills people, government once again investigates. That's as silly as having government investigate wrongdoing by its own employees as well as by freelance bad guys. Oh, wait...

I prefer private space efforts over governmental ones, but whether any corporate project is truly "private", due to the nature of corporations and their relationship with the State, is debatable. Unless you can hide your project while in development, launch without warning, stay ahead of the obligatory military pursuit, and have an off-world destination so you won't need to come back into any government's claimed territory, I suppose government interference is unavoidable for now.

Once off-planet, the IRS won't be able to sniff out all the voluntary acts of commerce between consenting individuals, among the asteroids or beyond. It's called "Liberty"! That's part of the reason for the heavy-handed control being exerted. If government notices you, they will insinuate themselves into your business one way or another. Therefore I understand the concessions being made by the commercial space entrepreneurs, even as I wish they'd rebel. The future belongs to the free..

Every day, in thousands of little (and not so little) ways, you and I are being trained to be obedient and compliant. Being molded into Mundanes.

From the tightly choreographed dance with the TSA's "special" idiots at the airports, where the smallest misstep can result in being fingered for "extra attention" or being barred from flying, to the way cops demand you grovel in their presence or risk being murdered, our immediate unquestioning obedience is expected.

It will make it easier to make people open their homes for gun confiscation or to convince them to climb into the cattle cars if they are already in the habit of obeying cops and politicians.

It takes a lot of practice to train people to to betray their own best interests for the benefit of compliance to false authority.

I understand how it is sometimes fatal to be seen as being defiant- you have to pick your battles. That gang is large and aggressive and just looking for an excuse to punish you.

However, as long as you are going through the motions of being obedient when you must, are you also practicing defiance when and where you can?

Just as obedience takes practice, so does outlawry.

If violating an arbitrary or harmful "law" can make your life better, and the benefit is greater than the risk of being caught, do it! Yes, I am advocating YOU "break laws" when you can. Not to do wrong things like initiate force or violate property, but to enhance your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It is right to violate bad rules. Often, it is even right to violate harmless but worthless rules. For practice.

Exercise those outlaw brain cells and muscles. Get in the habit of doing what's right rather than what "laws" order you to do. Look for opportunities to break "laws" whenever you can, in small but meaningful ways. Get good at defiance and thinking for yourself.

Understanding liberty comes somewhat naturally to me because it is who I am. That doesn't mean I don't make mistakes. But I want to be better. I want to always be improving. So I read what others have written concerning liberty, and then once it gets into my brain, I digest it, take it apart, and see what makes it tick. Without even really trying- it's automatic. Then I try to make it part of me, and share it with you when it is ripe. That's where this blog comes from.

I want to be able to dig to the very foundation of liberty in every situation. I want to recognize it from every angle under any condition. I'll pull out a magnifying glass and look at all it's nooks and crannies and warts and worn spots. I want to be the Sherlock Holmes of liberty- without the bad personality parts (some of which I may share with the character anyway).

I think that will make me a better person- or at least minimize any bad. And everything I have learned has shown me that respecting liberty in others is necessary to being a decent human being.

But, I have to put more work into the other aspects of my life. And some of those come much less naturally to me. I know I can be unemotional. I also know I can be overly emotional once triggered by something I deeply care about. I know I can be too quiet in person, and I know I can overshare. I know I can be too cold, and I can be too passionate. Balance is a good thing. Through it all, I know if I keep Rightful Liberty as the goal, I'm heading in the right direction.

-

* I haven't decided how to do this. I will probably have some that stay "subscriber only", and others I will publish here at a later date. As I have mentioned, all Paypal subscribers will also get the "subscriber only" blogs in an email. I feel a little bad holding some things back, and will not let the "quality" of the blog suffer for Patreon. I really do need to increase my income, though. Feel free to chime in with thoughts about this development.

You can't abolish kinderprisons because people have forgotten that educating themselves and their children is one of the main responsibilities of humans.

The excuses are seemingly endless.

Those are no reason to keep doing the wrong thing for fear of what might happen as a consequence of doing the right thing. Do the right thing- get rid of the counterfeit rules- and then eliminate each new government-created problem as it crops up.

That's how you get from here to there; not the "strategy" of refusing to ever do anything right because someone has set up a system that means the right thing might cause a problem.

Get over the cowardice. Stand up and do the right thing every time you have a choice.

Sunday, December 07, 2014

I saw the attached picture on "social media". So, apparently, to cop lovers there's no choice other than either inviting cops or calling a crackhead? Nothing in between those extremes? Seems silly to me, but if that were the only choice, calling a crackhead would still probably be the wiser choice.

But, what about this: Why not set up an alternate "emergency number" to compete with 911, but one to be monitored by volunteers. No "tax" money involved, so no coercion or theft required. Since no one would be forced to call them in an emergency, not being the only game in town, they would have incentive to "police" their own ranks and keep out anyone who creates problems (or murders at the drop of a hat), or who seems twitchy and potentially dangerous- you know, opposite of how cops operate.

I think lots of people would love to join such a group. And, instead of the has-been high school bullies attracted to the police department, its shiny trinkets, and gangland opportunities, you'd get people who actually want to help. Not those who want to throw around "authority" and enjoy a license to kill.

When you call this number and someone shows up, if you don't want that person's help because you know the individual and don't trust them, or because they are escalating the situation, send them on their way. They might think you unwise, but if they didn't leave they'd be trespassing and would be liable. And there would be no "qualified immunity" or FOP to hide behind.

Since they would have no "authority" to kidnap ("arrest") beyond what any other person has (you know, the way cops are actually supposed to be) there would be no great risk, and since they would be held accountable for murdering an innocent person, they wouldn't be as trigger-happy or dangerously aggressive. They would have no incentive to meddle and look for "drugs" or weapons which have nothing to do with their business, but would need to limit themselves to the business at hand.

I know I'd feel better calling these guys for help.

No "system" would be perfect, but the only advantage cops have now, as "first responders", is that they have a dispatcher and a standardized phone number. You can't usually call just one number and have immediate response and backup- if you call your friend and he doesn't answer the phone, you may not have time to make a second call. So, most people call the cops even knowing there is no situation so bad it can't be made worse by inviting a cop into the mix. This idea would fix that.

Yes, I realize cops and those who worship them would object to this idea- and fight you with every "law" they could dream up. After all, something like this would expose just what a bad idea cops are, and how dangerous and worthless they have become. "We" can't have that, now, can we?

Added: Someone found this, which sounds like a very similar idea. I have no personal experience or knowledge of them, but it might be a good thing to look into: Peacekeeper

Libertarianism is often criticized as only being for "rich white guys".

Of course, in the next breath it will be said to only be for losers who live in their mom's basement.

It's for people who think too much... or is it for people who don't think things through?

It is said it can't work in the "real world" by people who support Statism- which has failed to accomplish the supposed reason for its imposition every single time it has been imposed- for thousands of years.

But, statists have never been accused of being rational or consistent. Just "pragmatic" and "normal".

Saturday, December 06, 2014

Speed limits have got to be one of the silliest and most pointless expressions of the control-freak State.

Very few people drive dangerously fast. And those who do aren't slowed down by arbitrary speed limits.

Yet, speed limits are usually set just a hair below the speed everyone feels like driving. That's not for safety, since the speed limit could safely be set at the speed just about everyone drives anyway, but that would deprive the thieves of the State a revenue stream, and would give their highwaymen nothing to do.

Friday, December 05, 2014

I also think, until then, cops need to be followed everywhere they go by people with video cameras- so that they can't pick their nose without it being put on Youtube.

But, I also want cops to be wired for video so their actions can incriminate themselves. However, we all see how "conveniently" body cams malfunction when cops decide (premeditate) to molest or murder. The excuse is "battery life" or "I forgot".

So, how about this:
Cameras which are automatically activated anytime a gun or Taser leaves the holster, and can't be shut off until the weapon is back in the holster. That wouldn't have done anything for Eric Garner, of course- his murder was on video, and his murderer didn't use a weapon. I'm not sure about cameras which are triggered by the sleeve being pressed against a neck, but anything that hobbles or inconveniences enforcers is a win for the rest of us.

I also realize that until murdering cops are held accountable, all the evidence in the world won't change anything. But, maybe my idea would help that, too, by changing "public perception".

And, notice my "milestone goal". Is it a threat, or a promise? You decide. ;)

Those of you subscribing through Paypal (or anyone who'd like to start doing so), don't switch (because I like the convenience)- just let me know if you'd also like to get a reward like those my Patreon supporters will enjoy.

Thursday, December 04, 2014

Cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the face of the people. Your turn is coming, no matter how "law abiding" you believe yourself to be.

Unless policing is put to an end.

I am sick to death of cops molesting, beating, robbing, murdering, waylaying, raping, and causing general harm and mayhem- and idiots still fawning over them as if they are HEROES or something.

Get a clue: they are not heroes, they are the enemy of everything decent and good. Yes, they may also be the enemy of some bad people too, but don't make the fatal error of thinking that makes them your buddy. The Crips and Bloods and MS-13 are enemies (I guess- I have no real knowledge of pathetic gangs of any sort), but they are not your friends, either.

"Officer Friendly" was probably always a myth- even he committed acts of enforcement justified by counterfeit "laws" and lived on stolen money. You don't thank (or worship) a mugger just because he gets a kitten out of a tree occasionally.

You can't be a cop, performing "your duties" which go along with the "job", and be a decent or "good" person. It's impossible and self-contradictory. Yes, you may be "nice" to people you aren't enforcing on- or threatening with enforcement. No one can survive without being nice to most people most of the time- not even the worst monster imaginable.

Face the reality. Cops are bad, and are a destabilizing, dehumanizing, force for evil. They are not now, and have never been, "necessary".

Abolish the police. And in the meantime, shun them to death and let them starve in the cold, without selling them anything they need to survive, and without excusing those who continue to support these worthless tax junkies.

Yes, abolish the police and replace them with Rightful Liberty and a universally armed population. You and your descendants will be glad you did.

One of the most astonishingly ignorant (or stupid) comments I saw in the wake of the Ferguson grand jury decision was this:

Ppl don't realize what it's really like being a police officer and facing death just to do your job.

The same could be said about an armed robber or a rapist. They face death just to do their "job", too. and their "job" is no more disgusting than that of a cop. I do "realize" a lot about cops, from peaceable interactions with some.

Sometimes I have a little trouble swallowing fiction that portrays government as the good guys.

I have to remind myself it's just fiction. Like friendly pirates on kids' shows. Or shows where the plot revolves around the existence of magic. Fiction, nothing more.

Yet, dishonestly portraying government employees as "good guys" seems somewhat more damaging than those other sorts of fiction. After all, few of us will ever run into pirates (other than those of the IRS or the highway patrol), nor would we mistake them for the friendly characters from fiction if we did, and Harry Potter isn't our next door neighbor.

Government employees, and the "laws" they enforce against us, are all around. It is guaranteed they will shove their way into our lives at some point. Fooling people into believing they are "good guys" can cause real, lasting damage.

No, I don't call for "laws" requiring the media to portray them honestly- as the monstrously aggressive tax-junkies they truly are. I just remind you to keep straight the difference between reality and fiction in your own mind.

Tuesday, December 02, 2014

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 31, 2014)
Walking down a lonely trail, with no one else around, do your politics matter? Even to yourself?

When shipwrecked on a deserted island, or sitting alone in your house, it doesn't matter how you believe you should relate to other people. Politics is hypothetical in isolation. Once you add one other person- or an entire society of individuals- to the mix, how you interact with them becomes critically important and displays your character in vivid detail for all to see.

There are healthy ways to deal with other people and there are unhealthy ways. Trying to find the pragmatic way to control others and their property is the unhealthy way. The belief that governing others is a legitimate way to relate to people is called statism, and The State is how the unhealthy method manifests itself on a large scale. Crime- real crime, such as theft and aggression- is nothing but statism on an individual scale; stripped bare of the veil of legitimacy a government may appear to give it.

Respecting the rights of everyone to live as they see fit, as long as they aren't violating the person or property of any other individual- while maintaining your absolute human right to defend your life, liberty, and property against all violators- is the only healthy way to deal with other people. It's the opposite of statism: libertarianism.

I can't begin to tell you how many times I have seen the argument that liberty only works in desert island scenarios, but as soon as you add more people you must find a way to control each other "for the good of your society"; a euphemism for finding an excuse to violate each other in some way, and usually appoint someone to do it on your behalf in order to maintain the illusion that you are still civilized. This is exactly backwards.

Like any principle lubricating the gears between yourself and others, libertarianism only matters when you are around another person. Unfortunately, it seems to require more thought and effort than simply passing arbitrary and harmful laws, and letting someone else- paid by taxation taken from you and your victims- enforce those laws against anyone who may annoy you.

Alone, you could be a homicidal dictator, and no one would be harmed. When around other people you had better drop that childishness and start respecting everyone's rights if you want to live an ethical life.

It's unfortunate that statism tends to shield violators from their victims, but this still doesn't make the violators right, nor does it make their victims wrong when one defends himself from the violations.

The thing that bothers me most about the thuggish enforcer Darren Wilson vs freelance thug Michael Brown deadly encounter is that I don't for one second believe that if you or I (or any non-enforcer) had been in Wilson's place we would have been treated the same and given the same deference and courtesy.

We would have probably been arrested (even if not "officially") and put through suspected-criminal treatment even if we ultimately didn't end up being charged with any sort of crime. We wouldn't have been allowed to remain free, but would have been subjected to tests and forced to immediately explain our actions without the benefit of a political gang like that which was allowed to to insulate and protect Wilson from scrutiny until he had time to come up with a story.

I am in support of self defense even if you are a cop. And, maybe this really was a case of self defense. But enforcers are not entitled to special treatment. I want everyone who claims self defense to be treated the same by the "authorities" as Wilson was. If that means they all "get away with it", then too bad.

The double standard illustrated by this case (and every case of a shooting by enforcer) is what really infuriates me.

Are "our laws" based on the Ten Commandments? (I say "our laws", in quotes, because that's a silly way to phrase it. "Laws" belong to that mental illness called "The State", not to you or me.)

I see people claiming all the time that the biblical Ten Commandments form the foundation of "American Law". I sure hope not!

Actually, the first four commandments are strictly religious in nature and have no business being imposed by "law". In fact, the First Amendment forbids it (as does decency). That, of course, didn't stop Christian Sharia from being imposed.

Adultery and coveting might be bad ideas, personally, but they have no business being made "law" either. Adultery could be a contractual violation- or it might not be. Depending on your specific contract, and whether the other party violated it first. Making it a universal "law" is silly.

Coveting is a purely mental condition and, as long as you didn't act on it and steal (which is covered later), can't hurt anyone but yourself. Self-damaging thoughts are not within anyone's authority to forbid. Only a tyrant would pretend to have the authority to tell you what you are allowed to think- and I don't see how this could ever be expected to be enforced.

Honoring your parents might generally be nice (but certainly not universally a good thing) but would make a lousy "law".

Only the commandments against murder, theft, and bearing false witness have any business being defended against (notice I don't say they should be made law, since all laws are either unnecessary or harmful- you don't need "laws" forbidding aggression or theft to be right to defend yourself from them). These are secular commandments that aren't unique to Judeo-Christian morality. Natural Law covers them quite nicely without the baggage.

So, how many "laws" in the US Police State are really based upon the Ten Commandments? A small minority of them. And many of the ones which are, shouldn't be "laws" at all.

How many exceptions to the principles of the three remaining secular commandments are granted to vicious monsters as long as they commit their violations under the veil of "government"? More than it is possible to count.

So, US "laws" are founded upon the Ten Commandments? Don't be ridiculous!

Monday, December 01, 2014

As you probably know, I don't "believe in" imprisonment. I would rather aggressors and thieves be shot and killed by their intended victims (or a rescuer) at the time and place of the violation, and I realize that imprisonment doesn't result in restitution or justice.

But, I'll ignore all that for a moment.

Even if someone has done something bad, if they are caged for something else that isn't bad, but only "illegal", they should be let out.

That means even if a person attacked an innocent person, but got "arrested" for (or convicted of) drug possession instead, he should be set free. Force the State's goons to focus on the actual wrong, instead of the easy (and lazy) mala prohibita crap that they usually use.

That would result in fewer innocent people in the State's cages; propping up the State's prison industry.

Yes, that also means more bad guys on the streets (temporarily). It's a necessary trade-off until a free society evolves. And, if actual bad guys attack, "shoot, shovel, and shut up".

Sunday, November 30, 2014

If it's wrong to smoke pot, it is also wrong to take aspirin.
The two things are ethically identical. Although aspirin is probably more dangerous to your health, and easier to overdose on.

If it is wrong to smoke pot, it is also wrong to drink coffee.

If it is wrong to use one substance to relieve stress, alleviate pain, relax, or feel pleasure, it is wrong to do the same using any other substance or technique. The substance or technique is irrelevant.

Making up (or supporting) "laws" in denial of this fact is wrong. Supporting those who enforce those "laws" is heinous.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Those who sport a "support the police" sticker- or similar government extremist sentiment stickers- on their vehicle bumpers disturb me.

I assume a certain percentage display those stickers as a talisman (I've known some who admitted as much), hoping that by showing loyalty to the State they won't be targeted for victimization. But most probably really mean it. And that's sick.

They might as well have "I love genocide" bumper stickers.

Or "Give cannibalism a try!"
"Bring back slavery!"
"Burn all witches"
"Support Rapists"
"Child Sacrifice to ensure the harvest!"

Yeah, it really is that bad.

Few of them would ever be able to recognize what it really is they are supporting, but you know.

Thursday, November 27, 2014

I could find out how long it has been since I reminded you to attend TOLFA- The On Line Freedom Academy- but I won't because it doesn't matter. A reminder is never out of line.

The holidays are a busy time. The second harvest festival and that old approaching Solstice give people a good excuse to celebrate before winter bears down. But the holidays also apparently give people a lot of time to spare, since they tend to watch a lot of televised games. And, sometimes hide in a spare room to catch a breath from all the relatives. Or is that just me?

Why not use some of that time to start going through the TOLFA course? Consider it a gift you are giving yourself- and one you'll probably want to share with others.

I am thankful for people. I am thankful for my family. I am thankful for the few friends who have stayed friends with me- as difficult as that may be- over the years. And, although I miss my friends more than I can possibly express, I am thankful that most of them are just an email away when I need to reach out- even if I usually decide to not bother them. I am thankful for those who have loved me in the past.

I am thankful for the people who have made me expand my horizons in ways I never imagined I could. I am thankful for those who encouraged me to put myself into uncomfortable situations where I felt like I was totally out of place- but then stood by me while I got comfortable enough to enjoy the experience.

I am thankful for those who comment on my blog posts, my Facebook dribblings, and those who share my writings with others. Those who read what I write, and then take action on it, make me feel I am not wasting my time. And that is a great feeling. I am thankful for the people who choose to voluntarily support and encourage my writing habit with actual money.

There are other, maybe trivial, things I am thankful for.

I am thankful that I can eat just about anytime I want to. And that there is a variety of things I can choose from. Not to knock the "buy local" notion, but I'm very happy I am not trapped into eating only what is grown locally, when it happens to be in season. I am thankful that I have heat in the winter- and even more incredibly, that I have cool air in my house in the summer. I am thankful I don't usually sleep on rocks or roots, and that I don't wake up with my head having been buried while I slept by an industrious gopher. Until it has happened to you, you may not realize you should be thankful when it doesn't happen. I am thankful I can make fire (or heat) without having to actually make fire.

I am thankful that I can get on this electronic wonder box and interact with people all over the planet- although I am thankful I can also choose not to interact with Nigerian princes and Ghanaian lonely-hearts with the push of a button.

I am thankful that I can still go most days without being forced to interact with government employees. I am thankful that in most cases, even ignoring their "laws" comes without immediate consequences.

I am thankful for the experiences I have had and the memories I keep inside my head. I am thankful I can still imagine a better future.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Not only does this question come up anytime someone discusses eliminating government altogether; it comes up when anyone discusses cutting it back- as an example of "essential" minimal government.

What is it about roads that they can't exist without government?

Governments don't build roads. They hire contractors to do the work. So "who would build the roads?" The same people who build them now.

Governments don't even pay those contractors- they coercively extract, from the people, the money paid to the contractors. So, "Who would pay?" The same people who pay now: those who benefit from the road.

Bureaucracy makes everything more expensive, and stifles or prevents innovation, which decreases quality. Roads freed of government would have an automatic advantage in both areas.

When individuals profit or otherwise benefit from a road touching their property, the act of "eminent domain" loses justification.

People who object to privately owned roads complain about paying tolls, falsely believing the roads are "free" now, and believing private roads would be too expensive. You get what you pay for, but government always comes at a premium. Tolls are not the only way roads might be financed. Businesses eager for your patronage could chip in to ensure good roads lead you to their doors.

Not only that, but individuals and companies who owned roads would not be able to duck responsibility for poor road conditions. They could be held personally responsible if they allowed ice or a pothole to damage your car, or a drunk driver to crash into you.

That's right- privately owned roads could still forbid drunk driving. However, they probably couldn't get away with sobriety checkpoints. Their customers might flock to a competitor who didn't hire highwaymen to waylay and molest travelers without cause. People who believe checkpoints increase safety could still choose that route.

I also wonder why people assume a free society would continue to need roads as we know them. Pavement only matters because our cars bounce alone, dependent upon the surface conditions. The flying cars we were promised half a century ago can't seem to get past the various red tape traps erected by governments. The same red tape prevents innovation which could even make future wheeled cars lose the need for a paved ribbon beneath them.

Private vehicles have been a boon for liberty, and governments have- almost from the start- sought ways to infringe this liberty by increasing the cost, inconvenience, and by limiting the allowable benefits. It's time to end this war on travel.

If something is necessary and wanted, a free society will provide it. Better, cheaper, and in more variety than you can possibly imagine..

Validation

I'm not actively soliciting donations (or subscriptions) right now... oh, who am I kidding? Yes, please, donate or subscribe. It may be silly but it makes me feel like all the work that goes into this is valued by others and is worth the effort. Thanks.